Are military attacks on civilians sometimes justified?

[Corduroy]

Gallup has released the results of a global study that measure, among other things, regional views of military violence against civilians.

***

Americans and Canadians Are Most Likely to Say Military Attacks on Civilians Are Sometimes Justified

While the majority of world citizens agree that military attacks targeting civilians are never justified, a decade after 9/11, there is a wide range in the level of support for this view. A clear majority in Asia and MENA [Middle East and North Africa] find military attacks against civilians unacceptable. This is not surprising considering the acute conflicts raging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East.

In contrast, regionally, residents of the U.S. and Canada are most likely to say that military attacks against civilians are sometimes justified. Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified, followed by residents of Haiti and Israel (43%).

Europeans here break with their counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. The continent that fought two world wars and at one time used military conquest to colonize much of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, now has citizens whose sentiments regarding military attacks on civilians tracks closer to those of their former colonies, than that of their modern ally.

Source: Views of Violence

***

This poll also contains information on religious tolerance and how religious affiliation affects views on violence (the poll concludes that it doesn't). The parts I quoted here have to do with military attacks on civilians, but "individual" attacks on civilians were separated and the results were different.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Can I vote "always justified?"

Let them hate, so long as they fear.
-- Gaius Julius Caligula

 

[gerryh]

never

 

[Corduroy]

Can I vote "always justified?"

Let them hate, so long as they fear.
-- Gaius Julius Caligula

I bet that if they asked that, they'd skew more answers towards "sometimes". Poll questions can easily manipulate people toward certain answers. If you have people the option of "always justified" they might think "sometimes" is more acceptable and rational. It seems like the middle choice and people often lean to the middle.

 

[Glacier]

What if you have the Hamas war dogs hiding among civilians? You either bomb the entire building, killing 30 civilians in the process, or you don't, and let the fighters kill another 100. What is the right choice?

 

[gerryh]

What if you have the Hamas war dogs hiding among civilians? You either bomb the entire building, killing 30 civilians in the process, or you don't, and let the fighters kill another 100. What is the right choice?

If you are so hung up on killing them, then go in, in person, and get them.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I bet that if they asked that, they'd skew more answers towards "sometimes". Poll questions can easily manipulate people toward certain answers. If you have people the option of "always justified" they might think "sometimes" is more acceptable and rational. It seems like the middle choice and people often lean to the middle.

If it's the middle, can they be said to be leaning?

 

[Angstrom]

As long as it's no one in Canada, Or in my allies countries. Go right ahead

All humans that supports a economy who opposes mine and those of my allies are my enemy.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I find the answer to the question depending on how one uses the word justified. I think one should never target civilians and one can never justify doing so. However, if you target a military operation and kill some civilians in a war type situation, then the attack can be justified (as long as the purpose of the attack was not to attack civilians). This is the reason that pollsters hate me.

 

[lone wolf]

Never justified - just sometimes can't be avoided. When you have an enemy disguised as civilians and infiltration or clearing out non-beligerents aren't options all you can hope for is a clean surgical strike and forgiveness.

 

[MHz]

How many of the 'justified' would change their view if it was them being bombed?

Never justified - just sometimes can't be avoided. When you have an enemy disguised as civilians and infiltration or clearing out non-beligerents aren't options all you can hope for is a clean surgical strike and forgiveness.

In Syria they drive a crew cab with a machine gin in the back. Take them out on the roads as they have to travel or bring in supplies.

 

[damngrumpy]

There was a time when it was always justified, WWII for example ended up a
total war that killed civilians in Britain (Coventry) and in Germany (Dresden) for
for no good reason both had large centers of senior populations with little to
no military value.
I think we are hung up on myth. Yes myth, the rules of war are an illusion
unless you lose the war of course. My dad a WWII vet on a lot of front lines told
me don't believe the bull sh*t they hand you about rules of war

 

[darkbeaver]

Once you justify war you can justify anything.

The civilians behind the lines make the war possible, they are the targets. Without them the front collapses.

 

[gopher]

Bomb unprepared, unprotected civilians and invariably innocent children will get caught in the cross fire. This is intolerable.

 

[Angstrom]

There was a time when it was always justified, WWII for example ended up a
total war that killed civilians in Britain (Coventry) and in Germany (Dresden) for
for no good reason both had large centers of senior populations with little to
no military value.
I think we are hung up on myth. Yes myth, the rules of war are an illusion
unless you lose the war of course. My dad a WWII vet on a lot of front lines told
me don't believe the bull sh*t they hand you about rules of war

Only one rule in war. Make sure you win them.

 

[darkbeaver]

These Fifteen American Cities Are Destroying Homeless Camps Just Days Before Christmas

Cities across the country are waging an unprecedented war against the homeless.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/these-...less-camps-just-days-before-christmas/5497379

 

[Corduroy]

How many of the 'justified' would change their view if it was them being bombed?

Just look at the numbers from the Middle East.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I find the answer to the question depending on how one uses the word justified. I think one should never target civilians and one can never justify doing so. However, if you target a military operation and kill some civilians in a war type situation, then the attack can be justified (as long as the purpose of the attack was not to attack civilians). This is the reason that pollsters hate me.

Hmmmmm.....However, if you target a military operation in a war type
situation, then as the bomb is falling, a Wedding is spontaneously
planned, organized, and locates itself directly under the whistling
sound of this bomb falling, popping up like a mobile fruit stand in
half of all movie chase scenes I've ever seen....(takes a quick breath)....

I was going somewhere with this and lost my train of thought.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Unfortunately, the folks causing all the B.S. care not whether they target civilians or whether civilians become collateral damage during a fire fight.

As damngrumpy said, during the first and second world war civilians were targeted without much complaint.

Dresden, the sinking of the Lusitania, the bombing of Europe by both the Nazi's and the allies, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan. The invasion of the Japanese in the Philippines was a horrific operation that lead to the killing of civilian men, women and children. The suffering was endless.

I think the West does its best, but war is a dirty business and to try and sanitize it is a fools errand.

So the poll, in my humble opinion is a pointless task

 

[JLM]

never

Remember the old adage "there's an exception to every rule".

What about mass riots in a prison where damage to public property is happening and innocent lives are at risk? (I suppose it could be argued that prisoners aren't civilians in that they are not being civil)